On 8/29/16, Mirimir <[email protected]> wrote: > On 08/28/2016 11:09 PM, Bernhard R. Fischer wrote: >> On 2016-08-28 23:35, grarpamp wrote: >>> I meant having single onioncat handling multiple /48's would give another >>> abstract management option, in addition today multiple onioncats with >>> one /48 each. >> >> For me, it sounds very complicated what you are trying to do. So even >> one /48 prefix contains more addresses than the whole IPv4 address space. >> So why would you try to use several different /48 prefixes?
If a user wants to participate in my /48 and mir's /48, one daemon, config file, etc could be easier. As might filter rulesets matching on interface. > I mainly just wanted a different /48, as another kind of isolation. And > perhaps that's unnecessary. Assuming no other protection, and learning the onion via some method, such as other public services or DHT snooping, port 8060 is but one TCP connect away. A locally generated private /48 adds avg 2^47 guesses to that. Both of above may be hypothetical but you never know what users will come up with or like to do. Though multiple /48 is much more work than just an option to set a single /48. >> And OC is not a multi-cast network, thus you cannot simply "arp" for >> other OCs. In that context, it's "not a broadcast network". Arp for IP on ethernet is analogous simply syn check 8060 on tor+onioncat, both deal with the "up" and the address. -- tor-talk mailing list - [email protected] To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
